>
>
>Put is this way, I don't think it is likely that Pashakunis was
>murdered because he had some "good" Marxist theory of jurisprudence,
>and Stalin wanted to cover up the "good " theory and put forth a
>"bad" theory of Marxist jurisprudence. Does that speak to what you
>are getting at ?
I
Charles and Rakesh, this dialogue is going nowhere. Can you take it
offlist?
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 03:47:39PM -0500, Charles Brown wrote:
> Re: reform and rev
> by Rakesh Bhandari
> 24 January 2002 18:09 UTC
>
>
> >
> >>CB: I am not familiar with Pashakunis' liquidation specifics,
> >>alth
At 1/21/2002, Rakesh wrote:
>The reason why so many Marxists have difficulty in understanding the
>progressive thrust of many third world revolutions has been that they only
>study Marx, and do not beyond him. Two people who have tried to go beyond
>Marx here are Guglielmo Carchedi and Enriq
on 1/22/02 06:44 AM, Michael Perelman at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The Paris Commune caused a flurry of interest in Marx -- especially by
> mainstream economists.
>
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 10:13:37AM -0800, Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> CB: The difference between Marx and others is the
The Paris Commune caused a flurry of interest in Marx -- especially by
mainstream economists.
On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 10:13:37AM -0800, Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
> >
> >
> >CB: The difference between Marx and others is the Russian, Chinese
> >and other socialist revolutions. We are studying Marx
>
>
>The argument that deficits cause high interest rates is also
>theoretically and empirically questionable. More often the causation
>goes the other way--high interest rates mean higher interest payments on
>the public debt which cet par mean larger deficits.
Mat, good point indeed.
>
>The
>Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
>
>>(2) what happens if in running deficits, the US sucks up global
>>capital, raises interest rates, and visits catastrophe on poorer
>>nations? is this possible?
>
>You're assuming that deficits drive up interest rates. There's no
>simple relation between deficits and
G'day Running Dog
>And Carrol, it is Tienamen. I may be off on my spelling but,
> I'm closer, I betcha! Cf. "The Tienamen Papers, " edited by Andrew
> Nathan.
> Michael "Running Dog" Pugliese, Woof, Woof!
It was always rendered Tianenman here at the time.
I still remember those poor young
gt;
>--- Message Received ---
>From: Carrol Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 19:54:53 -0600
>Subject: [PEN-L:21620] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: reform and rev
>
>Carrol I like your thinking here but you probably will not like
my addition to i
G'day Christian,
> Michael wrote:
>
> > Also, interest rates are a very, very weak determinant of
> investment.
>
> Are you speaking generally? If so, do you know of any good empirical
> stuff that supports this?
>
Reckon pen-l has hit a very rich vein of late - gratitude to all.
Anyway, if
--- Message Received ---
From: Carrol Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 19:54:53 -0600
Subject: [PEN-L:21620] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: reform and rev
Carrol I like your thinking here but you probably will not like my addition to it.
Carrol:
"If I h
Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> >"If you don't hit it, it won't fall." Mao.
> >
> >I rather suspect that capitalism can be depended on periodically to tear
> >itself apart -- but it can also be depended on to put itself back
> >together
>
> Yup. As happened in Mao's own country
I have to run, but Robert Chirinko and Robert Eisner have done work on
this. bye.
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 12:56:20PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Michael wrote:
>
> > Also, interest rates are a very, very weak determinant of investment.
>
> Are you speaking generally? If so, do you know o
Michael wrote:
> Also, interest rates are a very, very weak determinant of investment.
Are you speaking generally? If so, do you know of any good empirical stuff that
supports this?
Christian
Similar to Brenner in many ways, yes. We both worked on the transition to
capitalism about the same time. Several people pointed out the similarity
between his New Left Review piece and my own work. When I saw it, my first
thought was plagiarism. I asked about it and he explained the pathway t
Also, interest rates are a very, very weak determinant of investment.
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 12:02:21PM -0500, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
>
> >(2) what happens if in running deficits, the US sucks up global
> >capital, raises interest rates, and visits catastrophe on poorer
Michael Perelman writes:>In my new book, The Pathology of the U.S. Economy
Revisited, I tried to make the case that this success rested, in part, on
prior conditions: a new capital stock coming out of the Great Depression and
World War II, the destruction of competing economies, and a very favorab
> >(2) what happens if in running deficits, the US sucks up global
> >capital, raises interest rates, and visits catastrophe on poorer
> >nations? is this possible?
Doug answers:
> You're assuming that deficits drive up interest rates. There's no
> simple relation between deficits and interes
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
>(2) what happens if in running deficits, the US sucks up global
>capital, raises interest rates, and visits catastrophe on poorer
>nations? is this possible?
You're assuming that deficits drive up interest rates. There's no
simple relation between deficits and interest
In my new book, The Pathology of the U.S. Economy Revisited, I tried to make
the case that this success rested, in part, on prior conditions: a new
capital stock coming out of the Great Depression and World War II, the
destruction of competing economies, and a very favorable debt structure.
"Will
Rakesh asks:
>Mat,
>(1) what happens if govt deficits in the pursuit of full employment
>have arresting effects on private investments; could this happen? why
>or why not?
If you are talking about some kind of "crowding out" then, first, I
think that many of the arguments for crowding out are
On Thursday, January 17, 2002 at 20:30:29 (-0800) Rakesh Bhandari writes:
>...
>I think govts have in fact already found that running deficits the
>size that would be needed to achieve full employment would only yield
>retrenchment in private investment; govts thus find that limiting
>deficits
michael writes:
>
>
>I believe that the slaughtering of captial values gives capital a lot
>more room to maneuver than a Keynesian solution -- which I regard as a
>temporary fix -- although I am not convinced that the ultimate problem
>is deficit financing.
I don't think the ultimate problem i
Regarding what Carrol wrote, Russell Jacoby wrote about how the German
social democrats embraced crisis theory because it offered the comforting
idea that they did not have to do anything -- the economy would fall on
its own.
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 10:43:58PM -0600, Carrol Cox wrote:
>
>
> Mi
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
> I think govts have in fact already found that running deficits the
> size that would be needed to achieve full employment would only yield
> retrenchment in private investment;
Rakesh, I am not sure how you support the above. Right wingers often
say the same. Doe
As Jim D. mentioned, Marx's private predictions were not particularly
accurate -- they included a large dollop of hope. Marxists generally
study Marx for his method, not for his predictions.
Ian Murray wrote:
>
> Ok, but how are his claims any different from the
> predictions of other economis
Michael Perelman wrote:
>
> Ian, Marx posited that capitalism would work that way for a while, but
> that the contradictions would accumulate and then , but then, it has
> not yet happened, except in the USSR, China ...
>
"If you don't hit it, it won't fall." Mao.
I rather suspect that c
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 8:07 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:21571] Re: Re: Re: reform and rev
Ian, Marx posited that capitalism would work that way for a
while, but
that th
list moderator michael writes:
>Rakesh keeps reiterating that deficits represent a serious threat. I don't
>agree, even though I believe that Keynesian policy runs in the problems in
>the long run.
I think govts have in fact already found that running deficits the
size that would be needed to
Ian, Marx posited that capitalism would work that way for a while, but
that the contradictions would accumulate and then , but then, it has
not yet happened, except in the USSR, China ...
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 07:15:22PM -0800, Ian Murray wrote:
>
> Hate to be a pain in the neck on this b
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 5:43 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:21567] Re: reform and rev
Rakesh keeps reiterating that deficits represent a serious
threat. I don't
agree, even though I believe that Keyn
mat wrote:
>I support anything that I think will make the lives of working people
>and the poor (and the working poor!) better than it is now, including
>deficit financed job creation, government spending on various social
>programs, living wage, etc. I don't believe that these things can end
>t
>I would say that keynesian demand management combined
>with a good safety net, ample social insurance,
and Max I am with you on the fight to preserve and expand such programmes.
>and a new
>agency that would rapidly resolve business bankruptcies and
>redeploy their assets, would solve the und
33 matches
Mail list logo
